Obama called on Republicans to back EV efforts at a post-election press conference. (Source: YouTube/The White House)

In his speech Obama essentially agreed to drop plans to legislate cap and trade, an "anti-global warming" scheme that would have cost over $1T USD and cut American farmers profits by as much as 57 percent by 2035. (Source: FreePeople Blog)

He hopes that in exchange for cooperation on warming, Republicans will contribute financial support to EV makers like GM, who launches the Chevy Volt EV this year. (Source: Pablo Martinez Monsivais, AP)

President essentially agrees to drop warming cap and trade carbon legislation in exchange

Speaking
at a post-election
press conference at the White House on Wednesday, U.S.
President Barack Obama called on his political rivals the Republican
Party (also know as the GOP, short for Grand Old Party) to join him
in supporting electric vehicles. He said that while the pair
sparred on many issues, that he hoped electric vehicles would be
something that the two parties would see eye to eye on.

The
President will need GOP cooperation if he hopes to push further
grants for the EV industry. While the Democratic Party hung on
to control of the U.S. Senate, Republicans seized a majority in the
U.S. House of Representatives.

Obama is trying to sell
Republicans on his
plan to push one million electric vehicles onto U.S. streets
by 2015.

Automakers have been partially supportive of Obama's
plan. They've lauded the $5B
USD in special battery and EV technology loans and grants
that he's lavished them with. The legislation to fund these
grants did enjoy a degree of bipartisan support, with some
Republicans jumping on board.

However, $10B
USD more in proposed EV loans and grants for the EV industry
was torpedoed during President Obama's first two years in office.
Opposition came primarily from the Republican party, but also from
some fiscally conservative Democrats.

Obama tried to drum up
support for more EV grants among both parties at the conference,
stating, "There's a lot of agreement around the need to make
sure that electric cars are developed here in the United States, that
we don't fall behind other countries. That gives opportunities
for Democrats and Republicans to come together."

Automakers have asserted
that grants will be greatly helpful in ensuring that the expensive
research needed to develop electric vehicles -- a radically different
internal architecture -- moves head at a sufficient pace.

But
while they have praised the "carrot" side of Obama's EV
approach, they have noisily
criticized the "stick" side of his plans -- a proposal
to mandate a 62 mpg average light vehicle efficiency by 2025.
Automakers were forced to begrudgingly accept a 34.1
mpg mandatory fuel efficiency increase that must be reached
by 2016.

Perhaps acknowledging that he faces an uphill battle
to pass more electric vehicle legislation, Obama took an apologetic
tone about the broader bailout, stating, "[Some voters] started
looking at all this and it felt as if government was getting much
more intrusive into people's lives than they were accustomed. We
thought it was necessary, but I'm sympathetic to folks who looked at
it and said this is looking like potential overreach."

The President
acknowledged that the bill wouldn't pass the House due to Republican
opposition and argued that he only tried to push it because of the
Supreme Court decision that found greenhouse gases a danger to public
health. That decision mandates the EPA to adopt some sort of
action to fight GHG emissions in the U.S.

Obama said that
there's plenty of alternatives to cap and trade, though -- including
promoting lower-emission EVs (centrally produced power, even with
transmission losses is typically lower emissions than small internal
combustion engines). He states, "Cap and trade was just
one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way. It was a means,
not an end. And I'm going to be looking for other means to address
this problems."

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

it's feasible for a lot of people right now. not everyone has to drive 100ts of miles each day (a lot do, yes). those that don't can switch to ev, and maybe rent that one time in holidays, where they need one (or do car sharing or what ever).

and besides, there was a presentation in germany where a car can drive 600km (nearly 400miles), that can be charged in minutes. so the tech WILL be there.

Well... based on it's fancy new transmission the Volt really seems to be a "Series-Parallel Hybrid" gas-electric hybrid. Since the power from the generator can be put to the weels, or pass throguh the transmission without noticable losses to recharge/maintain the battery.

quote: it's feasible for a lot of people right now. not everyone has to drive 100ts of miles each day (a lot do, yes). those that don't can switch to ev, and maybe rent that one time in holidays, where they need one (or do car sharing or what ever).

You have got to be kidding me... Until the EV has roughly the same characteristics as my Gas powered vechilce I'm not buying it. That includes everything price/range/refuling time/capabilities

Me and the vast majority of the rest of the population are not going to pay more money to lower our standard of living for some stupid crusade led by a bunch of lemmings that drank the global warming koolaid.

quote: not everyone has to drive 100ts of miles each day (a lot do, yes). those that don't can switch to ev, and maybe rent that one time in holidays, where they need one (or do car sharing or what ever).

I get so sick and tired of you bed wetting neo-fascists telling the rest of us what we should drive and how we should live. It is none of your business how someone else chooses to spend their money on a vehicle or anything else for that matter.

Maybe you Europeans love your government controlling all aspects of your lives, but we Americans do not. And we just handed the Democrats their collective asses on a plate this past Tuesday proving it.

While the number of seats that went Republican was high, the percentages would not call it a landslide. A 45% to 55% loss may be a loss of a seat, but that isn't a huge win when that is a difference of only 6000 votes or less between candidates. There were many more 48 to 52 type of Democratic losses than there were BIG wins.

Ok, back on topic here. I may be "on the other side", in your book, but I agree that the government should not be pushing a technology that is not ready yet. Putting small financial penalties on those with large vehicles(which would be tax deductible if you have a business use for it) and putting financial incentives for those going for more fuel efficient vehicles would be a far better way to encourage a general shift in what cars to buy than trying to push EVERYONE into a new technology that may not even be beneficial to the country in the long run.

The real key here is that the infrastructure needed to make EV really take off is not out there yet, and it will take at least another 5 nuclear power plants to be built before I would feel comfortable with the government pushing us to EVs. How many times in the past ten years have various parts of the country experienced a power shortage during summer months?

The only way for an all EV system to work right now would be to have the battery packs get exchanged at service stations as a way to get around the long recharge times of current batteries...so, how many hundreds, if not thousands of battery packs would a station need to keep on hand for this to work? It just would NOT work right now, the battery technology and infrastructure are not ready for it.

I also want the ability to drive 400+ miles at a time on a trip, and it will be at least 30 years before the technology is there and fully developed.

quote: While the number of seats that went Republican was high, the percentages would not call it a landslide. A 45% to 55% loss may be a loss of a seat, but that isn't a huge win when that is a difference of only 6000 votes or less between candidates. There were many more 48 to 52 type of Democratic losses than there were BIG wins.

Hear that at MSNBC? I know the race to downplay the scope of the Democratic defeat is on, but you have got to be kidding me. This was a landslide, no way around it. The biggest landslide in 60 something years! Not just in Congressional seats, but 20 State legislatures that were controlled by Democrats flipped Republican. The Democrats lose control of 20 states overnight and a truckload of Congressional seats, LOSE the Speaker of the House, and you say it's not a landslide?

You can play the percentage game all you want, it's laughable. No matter who wins, in a sport or politics or business, there is always one bitter guy bringing up massaged statistics as to why the other side didn't really "win". Congratulations, you're that guy.

quote: Hear that at MSNBC? I know the race to downplay the scope of the Democratic defeat is on, but you have got to be kidding me. This was a landslide, no way around it. The biggest landslide in 60 something years! Not just in Congressional seats, but 20 State legislatures that were controlled by Democrats flipped Republican. The Democrats lose control of 20 states overnight and a truckload of Congressional seats, LOSE the Speaker of the House, and you say it's not a landslide? You can play the percentage game all you want, it's laughable. No matter who wins, in a sport or politics or business, there is always one bitter guy bringing up massaged statistics as to why the other side didn't really "win". Congratulations, you're that guy.

Hear that at Fox News? This is nowhere near the shift the occurred in the early 90s. I am not sure if you are new to politics or not, but this happens every election cycle. When Bush came to office, the repubs lost seats as well. Funny how you refer to the other guy as bitter.

Anyone else not see that article and immediately though "Jason Mick wrote this...". Is this even a tech site any more or simply politics with a little tech mixed in?

Well when the Dems - who rammed through a LOT of things American vehemently rejected mind you (starting with Obamacare) - trot out the lawsuit machine because they lost, what else would you call it other than being bitter?

And here's something so many on the left seem to just not seem to get through the propeller on top of the beanie cap: America does NOT want socialism and government nanny-statism telling them what do drive, what to eat (that's you Michelle Obama), and telling them what kinds of light bulbs to use.

And you can include the hyper EV wave, Cap & Trade, and other "green" nonsense government (at least under Dem rule anyway) is/was attempting to ram down our gullets and the gullets of US corporations and private enterprise.

So yes, Politics IS a part of this thread and many others. Wasn't Obama mentioned in the freaking title?

quote: Hear that at Fox News? This is nowhere near the shift the occurred in the early 90s.

Yes it is. I don't know why you people keep repeating this, or do you just pick it up on TV and run with it? The 90's? This was the biggest partisan shift in Congress since 1948! This stuff is easy to look up, so do it. Stop being ignorant.

That's interesting Targon - when Republicans win big, liberals whine that it's not that big of a deal (or at worst claim the vote was stolen). The main stream DNC media is all too good at doing that. I can name you MANY states where the election that Obama won was close (and I won't go into how that idiot Al Franken stole the election in Minnesota). But go ahead and downplay the Republican wins. It was a referendum against Democrat socialist neo-fascism nanny-statism. Plain and simple.

But back to your point on topic, you can "penalize" me for owning a car/truck "I don't need" until hell freezes over, Mr. Fascist. I'll pay it, gladly. And you can have your cute little EV car for whatever you want to do with it. Don't tell ME what to buy, jack.

I've considered myself a democrat for a good long while. Relatively recently I started thinking of myself as an independent after paying really close attention to politics and whathaveyou for the last few years. On Tuesday I voted republican because we really need to fix some things that have happened recently in Washington.

Personally I think you are doing everyone a disservice and would prefer if you and others didn't try to downplay what happened. I think what some republicans said in their victory speeches was great. That is to say, it was not a night for republicans or against democrats as much as it was a night to realize the American people are fed up with how things are going in Washington.

"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer